Advances in Medical Education and Practice (Sep 2023)
Student Perceptions of a New Course Using Argumentation in Medical Education
Abstract
Andrew J Foy,1,2,* Kent E Vrana,3 Paul Haidet,1,2 Bernice L Hausman,2,4 Nancy E Adams,5 Ira Ropson,6 Daniel R Wolpaw,1 David Rabago,2,7 Richard B Mailman,3,8 Xuemei Huang3,8– 10,* 1Penn State Department of Medicine, Penn State Milton S Hershey Medical Center and College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA; 2Penn State Department of Public Health Science, Penn State Milton S Hershey Medical Center and College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA; 3Penn State Department of Pharmacology, Penn State Milton S Hershey Medical Center and College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA; 4Penn State Department of Humanities, Penn State Milton S Hershey Medical Center and College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA; 5Harrel Library Foundational Sciences, Penn State Milton S Hershey Medical Center and College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA; 6Penn State Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Penn State Milton S Hershey Medical Center and College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA; 7Penn State Department of Family and Community Medicine, Penn State Milton S Hershey Medical Center and College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA; 8Penn State Department of Neurosurgery, Penn State Milton S Hershey Medical Center and College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA; 9Penn State Department of Neurology, Penn State Milton S Hershey Medical Center and College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA; 10Penn State Department of Kinesiology, Penn State Milton S Hershey Medical Center and College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Andrew J Foy, Penn State Milton S Hershey Medical Center and College of Medicine, Penn State Heart and Vascular Institute, Division of Cardiology, Hershey, PA, USA, Email [email protected]: Critical thinking and the ability to engage with others of differing views in a civil manner is essential to the practice of medicine. A new format for medical student education (“Argue-to-Learn”) that uses staged debates followed by small group discussions was introduced into the curriculum of first year medical school at the Penn State College of Medicine. The goal was to create a structured environment for spirited, civil discourse, and to encourage students to think critically about clinically controversial topics. This manuscript describes the development of the program, and presents comparative data on student perceptions of the first two mandatory sessions that focused on the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis and on COVID-19 vaccine mandates.Methods: Quantitative results were gathered from standardized post-block student surveys for each session and compared to cumulative results of all other courses included in the learning block. Post-block surveys of students include four session-evaluation questions scored on a 5 point Likert scale. Scores were compared using Student’s t-test. Thematic analysis of qualitative data was performed on a single open-ended response from the same survey.Results: Compared to all other courses in the learning block, scores on each of the four questions were either the same or numerically higher for the Argue-to-Learn sessions, but none reached statistical significance. Two important qualitative themes were identified. First, students enjoyed the format, found it interesting and engaging and want more similar sessions. Second, students appreciated hearing opposing viewpoints and presenting their own viewpoints in a safe and supportive environment.Conclusion: These findings support evidence from educational scholarship outside of medicine showing argumentation as a learning tool is well received by students. Further work is needed to determine whether it improves critical thinking skills and enhances learning in medical education.Keywords: argumentation, critical discourse, collaborative learning
